gun control debate

[blugiant]

mixxed race man a push a bill fe sumwat limit gun ownership by infringinn pon peeps rites to own weapons. imm push through 23 xxecutive orders dat doan require debate. de joke iss dat moas aff de badd peeps wey buy guns illegallee will natt be affected. imagine more badd peeps widd guns ann legal law abiding citizens cyaan buy gun fe defend demselves. joke tings a gawn.

so wat oonnoo tink bout de gun cantrol debate wey a gawn? itt bout restrictinn peeps right fe own gun under de argument dat less gun ownership increases peeps safetee

[My Looh]

mixxed race handling push a bill frifleumwat limit gun ownership by infringinn pon peeps rites to own weapons. imm push through 23 xxecutive orders dat doan require debate. de joke iss dat moas aff de badd peeps wey buy guns illegallee will natt be affected. imagine more badd peeps widd guns ann legal law abiding citizens cyaan buy gun fe defend demselves. joke tings a gawn.

so wat oonnoo tink bout de gun cantrol debate wey a gawn? itt bout restrictinn peeps right fe own gun under de argument dat less gun ownership increases peeps safetee

IMHO

EVERY adult who...

- Has no criminal record.
- Has no mental ilness that may lead to violence.
- Has taken a course in the proper handling and storage of firearms and ammunition.
- Has registerd their weapon.

... should be able to own a gun, but not an assault type rifle.

[RichD]

i agree i see no issue with Registration and background checks.

i would even go as far as a process similar to drivers license where you have to be tested for competence to operate.

[blugiant]

IMHO

EVERY adult who...

- Has no criminal record.
- Has no mental ilness that may lead to violence.
- Has taken a course in the proper handling and storage of firearms and ammunition.
- Has registerd their weapon.

... should be able to own a gun, but not an assault type rifle.

so yuh seyinn dat blakk peeps widd criminal recard shood natt ave de rite fe own guns given dat institutional racism criminalized a latt aff blakk dispropotionatelee. imagine dat dese mass shootinn ar majaritee oyinbo male ova( 70%) yet moas aff dese reulation usuallee geared to restrictinn blakk peeps rites. bet yuh iff itt wass wan blakk mass shooter dem wood ave passed more racist gun cantrol bill awlreadee

mental illness sund like more peeps affii be subjected to mental health evaluation even dough moas aff dem mass shooter were being treated bye mental health peeps fore dem went awf.

da joke iss dat a latt aff dem mass shooters were trained inn de proper handling aff weapons

y shood peeps be force fe register weapons iff dem obtain dem legallee?

[blugiant]

i agree i see no issue with Registration and background checks.

i would even go as far as a process similar to drivers license where you have to be tested for competence to operate.

bigg diffarace between driver license ann gun ownership. driver license iss a privilege cah peeps doan legallee ave de right to drive. de right to bear arm iss constitutional right.

to compare de two ann require a similar process iss bout infringinn on the right peeps ave under de constitution

[RichD]

bigg diffarace between driver license ann gun ownership. driver license iss a privilege cah peeps doan legallee ave de right to drive. de right to bear arm iss constitutional right.

to compare de two ann require a similar process iss bout infringinn on the right peeps ave under de constitution

garbage argument . registration in no way infringe on the right

[blugiant]

garbage argument . registration in no way infringe on the right

lass thyme mii check de secand amendment mii read bout de rite fe bear arm. mii neva see a ting bout de right fe drive car. plus yuh doan affii register a car iff yuh nah drive itt pon public road. registration argument mean dat yuh tellinn peeps yuh ave a gun. de right fe bear arm mean itt nobodee bizzness iff de gun legallee obtain.

babylon ting iss fe use crisis fe infringe pon peeps constitutional under de guise dat itt inn de public interest ann itt bout mekkinn tings safer fe peeps. peeps woo willinn fe give upp dem rite fe da illusion aff security deserve tryanneee

[blugiant]

Pentagon a quiet force in gun-control debate. What does it want?

The Pentagon has already successfully taken on the NRA over a pro-gun congressional measure that it didn't like. Now some retired officials are speaking out in the gun-control debate.


Even as President Obama announced sweeping gun-control initiatives Wednesday, one little-discussed contingent has been quietly influencing the debate behind the scenes: current and former US military commanders.

US military officials have already been successful in reversing one initiative backed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) on Capitol Hill, which they worried could have a dangerous impact on US troops. Now, some prominent retired military officials are backing the administration's calls for "responsible gun ownership," including limits on military-style assault weapons.

Given their background, active and retired US military often have significant credibility in the gun-rights debate – both in Congress and among the general public.


“I do think retired military officers have a bit more weight than, no offense, the stereotypical ‘knee-jerk New England liberals' do,” says retired Col. Elspeth Cameron Ritchie, a psychiatrist and former mental health adviser to the Army surgeon general. “We’ve got credibility, we’ve worn the uniform, we’ve carried weapons. I like to go to the range and shoot – we’re not anti-weapon, per se.”

Earlier this month, retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who served as the commander of US forces in Afghanistan and before that as head of the elite Joint Special Operations Command, which oversees US Navy SEAL and Delta Force missions, said that there is no reason for most Americans to have military-grade weapons.

“I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine,” he told MSNBC. “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round – which is 5.56 millimeters – at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

Ge

He added, “I personally don't think there's any need for that kind of weaponry on the streets and particularly around the schools in America. I believe that we've got to take a serious look – I understand everybody's desire to have whatever they want – but we have to protect our children and our police and we have to protect our population. And I think we have to take a very mature look at that."

Military commanders have not been shy about taking on pro-gun laws that they see as detrimental to their troops. For more than a year, they pushed Congress to change the language of a measure that prevented commanders from talking to their troops about weapons that they might be keeping at home.

These were conversations that commanders wanted to have as the suicide rate among US troops was rising amid a decade of war. More US troops now die as a result of suicide than in battle.

“A majority of [suicides] have two things in common – alcohol and a gun,” said retired Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli last year, when he was the No. 2 officer in the US Army. “And when you have somebody that you in fact feel is high risk, I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to tell that individual that it would not be a good idea to have a weapon around the house.”

In December, lawmakers voted to change the language to clearly allow commanders to talk with troops about firearms.

Dr. Ritchie's research has led her to deeper questions about guns and troop safety. She says troops are often at risk of harming themselves and others because of the easy access they have to firearms, both on base and at gun stores off-base.

As part of a team investigating military bases with escalating suicide rates, Ritchie found that one factor common to all these installations “is that they are in states with relatively permissive gun laws.”

She advocates for more gun safety education for troops. “I talk about things that I think might work,” she says. “I know it’s obviously a very emotionally charged issue, so I don’t use the term ‘gun control’ but ‘responsible gun ownership.’ ”

On Thursday, as President Obama was announcing new gun-control proposals – including a ban on assault weapons – Ritchie and McChrystal said that the conversation on weapons in America needs to continue. “I think it has gained a lot more traction now,” Ritchie says. “But there’s a lot further to go.”

[blugiant]

Panetta Wades Into Gun-Control Debate


Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is used to fielding questions from troops about deployments to Afghanistan, military retirement and family benefits, but a question from a soldier on Thursday led the Pentagon chief to wade in to the thorny politics of gun control.

From the framing of the question, the soldier sounded skeptical of gun control, asking what proposals the Obama administration would make to protect children in schools that “don’t tear apart the Second Amendment.”

Mr. Panetta, however, made no bones about his support for the Obama administration’s proposals and noted that he helped with former President Bill Clinton’s effort in 1994 to “ban the sale of assault weapons.” Mr. Panetta said he supported that ban as well as prohibitions on armor-piercing bullets.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/17/panetta-wades-into-gun-control-debate/

[RichD]

lass thyme mii check de secand amendment mii read bout de rite fe bear arm. mii neva see a ting bout de right fe drive car. plus yuh doan affii register a car iff yuh nah drive itt pon public road. registration argument mean dat yuh tellinn peeps yuh ave a gun. de right fe bear arm mean itt nobodee bizzness iff de gun legallee obtain.

babylon ting iss fe use crisis fe infringe pon peeps constitutional under de guise dat itt inn de public interest ann itt bout mekkinn tings safer fe peeps. peeps woo willinn fe give upp dem rite fe da illusion aff security deserve tryanneee

yuh ready to wrap yuhself in oyinbo racist constitution when it suit yuh eh.

the constitution nuh come don from above so what man give man can tek wey

[lonewolf]

garbage argument . registration in no way infringe on the right

The whole arguement about registration is nonsense. Every person that purchases a rifle or pistol has to register and fill out a federal firearms form at the time of purchase, it's been this way for decades, however, there is not a back ground check on that purchaser. This makes registration worthless. What is needed is a waiting period and background check on the purchaser.
There is a waiting and background check in some states for handgun and assault rifle purchases, and not hunting rifles or shotguns. Such is the case in the state of Maryland.

I own many guns including an assault rifle. I don't hunt, but merely target shoot. The only thing my assault rifle has ever killed is a PAPER TARGET, after 30 years of ownership. These weapons are not any different than any hunting rifle with the acception that they hold more bullets in the magazine. THEY ARE NOT FULLY AUTOMATIC, which many uneducated non-gun owners seem to think. A person must pull the trigger every time a bullet is discharged. These weapons don't function like a military assault rifle. They will not randomly spray a hale of bullets such as a weapon issued to a combat soldier.

“I spent a career carrying typically either a M16, and later a M4 carbine,” he told MSNBC. “And a M4 carbine fires a .223 caliber round – which is 5.56 millimeters – at about 3,000 feet per second. When it hits a human body, the effects are devastating. It’s designed to do that. That’s what our soldiers ought to carry.”

More nonsense...there are many devastating calibers that are not used in combat, but mainly hunting such as 243 winchester, 30-30 winchester, 270 winchester, 30-06 springfield and a 300 winchester mag will take down a moose. These calibers are more devastating to the human body than a 5.56 caliber. The point is that if the 5.56 is eliminated, or outlawed, there are many more powewrful cartridges available...It's all window dressing for the uneducated...And, the .556 and .223 are the same bullet, but they are not. A .223 round can be shot out of a .556 designed weapon, but a .556 caliber can not be shot out of weapon designed to shoot the .223 caliber. The .556 is more powerful and would damage the .223 designed weapon.


PS. The American people need to ask themselves, why are they raising children that want to murder. The passage (knee jerk reaction) of more gun control laws...will not make your children suddenly have thier sanity. We have failed as a society to raise children. Stop medicating your children because they act up, and start to parent them instead. The issue is much bigger than gun control. IMHO

[RichD]

PS. The American people need to ask themselves, why are they raising children that want to murder. The passage (knee jerk reaction) of more gun control laws...will not make your children suddenly have thier sanity. We have failed as a society to raise children. Stop medicating your children because they act up, and start to parent them instead. The issue is much bigger than gun control. IMHO

i agree with that

[Suesumba]

dat blakk peeps widd criminal recard

so all black people have criminal records?

[R_C]

lass thyme mii check de secand amendment mii read bout de rite fe bear arm. mii neva see a ting bout de right fe drive car.

Eff a laff a pop. blu using argument from a document written by slave owners (who in the very same document that the second amendment appears also declared their slaves to be 3/5 human) to make his point.

Blu, yuh slip showing boss....

[lonewolf]

i agree with that

Rich, I once owned a shooting and hunting supplies store. I had a Federal firearms license and Maryland State hand gun license. I have filled out many(would be purchaser) gun ownership forms for Md state back ground checks and FFL forms. I can truthfully answer most questions relating to firearms sales as it pertains to current law.